[BillSwagger]

LuckyOne,

Well I know that,but I am interested in those "Numerous publications" which equalize some Spitfire and some Bf-109....and I do not want to hear word Osprey and similar based or amateur publications.

I've glanced at Mike williams site and it appears the Spit IX wasn't superior to the G model in climb until the introduction of the Merlin 66 and later. I also find that mike's site admitedly lacks sufficient climb data for the 109.

There are graphs that seem to show quite a wide disparity in the rates of climbs but looking at the data, particularly in "time to climb" the Finnish report on the 109 shows the G-2 climbed to 6000m in 5 minutes, and the Spit IX Merlin66 made it to 20,000ft in 4.75 minutes. (merlin 70 , 4.85 minutes) (merlin 61, 5.6 minutes).

Another interesting thought is the fact that the 109 had an automated prop control linkage that made it so the pilot could operate more easily by just making adjustments in throttle. Perhaps modding the aircraft is less a significant factor than a pilots ability to know how to use the prop pitch for a gained advantage, particularly if it meant disengaging the auto prop pitch and running the engine outside of the manufactures settings. However, the data is no less muddy with this explanation, but maybe simpler to show.

It was mentioned that the climb angle of the 109E was significantly steeper than that of the Spitfire mk1. I'm not sure if this fact remained as both models improved with engine performance.

I think when looking at various data observers also need consider the combat condition of the aircraft and engine settings and most importantly the extent to which the tested performance was actually used in combat.

There is also a tactical evaluation of a 109G-6 and a spit IX using 18lbs and 25lbs boost. In this evaluation the 109 has under wing gondolas, so how do you decipher a conclusion made under these conditions on 109s that didn't have gondolas.

"Conclusion
22. The Me.109G has an inferior performance to the Spitfire in all respects with the exception of acceleration in a dive and the slight advantage in speed which it possesses at heights between 16,000 and 20,000 feet. "


There is probably more information to suggest otherwise, or reinforce these results, this was just looking at one website.

I've seen habits of researchers that will tend to point toward information that reinforces their conclusions rather than searching for information that opposes it. An accurate conclusion can't be made with out searching for opposing information. It actually would save more time to start with opposing views than to continue to add to the lumps of information that reinforce whats already been shown. If opposing views can't be supported, then they can be ignored. I just get tired of seeing conclusions that don't even address the opposing views, when they should be in the habit of addressing those things when it comes to making conclusions.

Of course you can only conclude plane A is faster than plane B if you only search for those conditions that it was. You should search for conditions when it was not.


Bill